Sony for underwater pics?
Feb 7, 2017 17:32:56 #
Wife dragging me on another trip, this time to the Galapagos. From my research, all say be prepared for underwater pics. Bought a Sony RX100 IV after seeing so many underwater housings available for it. So wondering, good choice or not? I have been impressed with little camera since I have had it. Optics seem pretty good. Usually shoot with D800 and D810. Thanks.
Feb 8, 2017 06:42:16 #
I shot underwater video for a Palau documentary on the 100 m4. Video is difficult because of the light weight--tends to be shaky even with steadyshot on. It's very handy though and housings are cheap. You can buy wet wide converters for a couple of hundred dollars which work well too. I did underwater video in the Galapagos some years ago. You will need a CC filter or better yet lights. Don't expect to be able to color correct well even with a filter below 5 meters or so. Visibility is only so-so. PM me for details. Overall I think the Sony is a good choice.
Feb 8, 2017 16:38:49 #
captxmas
Loc: San Francisco Bay Area
I actually beleive Sony make an excellent series of cameras/sensors for this application. I have had several pocket cams and housings over the years and now use an A6000 with a $200 housing that always performs great to depths of 60+ feet. The previous poster is correct re: lights and filters. Once below even 10 feet, corrections will need to be made but this is often related to water clarity as much as losing the red hue. Have a great time!
Feb 8, 2017 16:42:06 #
captxmas wrote:
I actually beleive Sony make an excellent series of cameras/sensors for this application. I have had several pocket cams and housings over the years and now use an A6000 with a $200 housing that always performs great to depths of 60+ feet. The previous poster is correct re: lights and filters. Once below even 10 feet, corrections will need to be made but this is often related to water clarity as much as losing the red hue. Have a great time!
Will probably just be snorkeling, so so significant depth. Planned to shoot everything in RAW, so I assumed (maybe incorrectly) that I would have sufficient control in post processing to make needed corrections. If my assumptions are in error, please set me straight. Thanks Much...
Feb 10, 2017 01:48:08 #
jeepguy wrote:
Will probably just be snorkeling, so so significant depth. Planned to shoot everything in RAW, so I assumed (maybe incorrectly) that I would have sufficient control in post processing to make needed corrections. If my assumptions are in error, please set me straight. Thanks Much...
You will not be able to replace color that is not there. Expect a very blue cast over everything more than a couple of meters deep. You will be able to turn the water grey-green in post, but don't expect to get the color back into fish, for instance.
Mar 4, 2018 23:54:03 #
captxmas
Loc: San Francisco Bay Area
One of the thing I do when in post is to reduce blue rather than try and add red that is not there. Seem to work fairly well in lightroom. Just a thought.
Mar 5, 2018 09:22:16 #
captxmas wrote:
One of the thing I do when in post is to reduce blue rather than try and add red that is not there. Seem to work fairly well in lightroom. Just a thought.
No, adding colors that are missing will not work, because then you will add them as well to objects that do not have them, such as the water and white objects. That is especially a problem if you have highlights, which are white and will turn lurid orange/pink.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.